Slashdot Mirror
OSx86 Shutdown Rumors Explained
n.e.watson writes "The AP has run an article that addresses recent rumors on the internet about Apple Legal shutting down the OSx86 Project, with a statement from an OSx86 administrator. From the article: 'The OSx86 Project Web site stated Apple had served it with a notice on Thursday citing violations of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the site was reviewing all of its discussion forum postings as a result. The site has always aimed to adhere to copyright laws and is working with Apple to ensure no violations exist, according to a statement by the site administrator.'"
Hmm - we do something similar at AOL in terms of the poem (yes, I know - you're SHOCKED that big companies do similar misguided goofy things :P). I had just written about it on my blog given all the Apple press swirl about this.
:)
But we (AOL) are not really trying to prevent the random developer or user from doing anything - obviously this isn't about being secure TECHNICALLY. We just wanted to prevent giant business partners and competitors and the like profiting from doing things with our software and users we didn't authorize.
I'd imagine Apple's reasons are similar, though that doesn't really line up with this shutdown order. As I don't think anything like this has gone to court yet, it sounds like either they need to enforce their rights everywhere to keep them, or they're trying to force the precedent, or they've got some zealous/quasi-religious entitlement thing going, between their iPod protectionism, shutting down rumour sites, and now this... Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple
graphically speaking
And Apple doesn't want to have to support you when the OS craps out because of some crazy hardware setup you've got.
That being said, though, why don't they throw it out there for cheap with NO support. You buy it, you install it, you figure it out, on your own. Or you pay extra for support? They still make some money on a product already developed (which is what businesses need to do in order to survive) and the do-it-yourself type gets something to play with and hopefully enjoy.
We'll see...
---John Holmes...
form OSx86 site:
:)))
"Apple is certainly well within their rights to protect their OS and we have always supported them in this effort. Our first-class moderating staff has helped ensure that direct links to any patches are not allowed. We have in the past linked to the homepage of Maxxuss - but not to the offending 10.4.4 patches - in the interest of news, but we've removed those links just in case."
funny thing, they removed links to supposedly infriging site, but put name of this site on the front page - using it as google keyword will lead you to the same site from the first hit
OK, after reading TFA, this strikes me as more a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit by Apple than any government intervention. It appears that Apple served their ISP with notice of a possible DMCA violation, and so the ISP (or the site administrators) shut the site down in order to verify the claims made by Apple. No judge has filed an order, however.
So: are links to remote sites which convey possibly nonviolent criminal information worth squelching in the public interest? And should a private entity have the inherent right to enforce their interest without a court order (as appears to be the case here)? Because that's what misuse of SLAPP is all about.
That one's easy. When they stopped having Woz.
I am trolling
move your hosting/company from the USA to any of the other 191 countries where the dmca has as much authority as toilet paper
due to recent events USA is last place i would want to set up a company (never mind visit as a tourist)
Everytime i wonder when i see a valuable project taken down for DMCA violations i wonder: "why dont they just continue the job overseas where legislation is more reasonable?"
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
The RK05 drive would take more than 1KW alone. But let's be honest here, we could go all the way back to ENIAC, each step finding systems which consumed more power then the last. Hell, at work we just dumped an AlphaServer 8600 which fit into several cabinets and took three phase into the back of the unit. Weeee!!!
Bookmarked. Nice going, Apple, wouldn't have found it without your threats.
Funny. I thought talking about crimes wasn't illegal in this country. There have been what I think is legal information about how to do things that are completely illegal for as long as I can remember. While you should never act on this information, it is only information.
While The Anarchist Cookbook is legally available in the United States, it is unlawful in many other countries. The information contained in the book includes instructions that, if followed, may be against the law (see felony for more details). Anarchist Cookbook
I dont buy computers, I build my own, I've been doing this for the past 7 to 8 years. With all the restrictions that apple puts in place for OSX I will never be able to try it. There could be lots of geeks who do this, may be they are minority which do not make any business sense for apple to sell OSX sans their hardware. Really, folks if a company do not want you to use their software on any of the custom machines you build why even BUY their software. This is nothing but ego clash between Apple and hackers. I think apple has every right to shut these people down. If you dont like their hardware DONT FUCKING BUY THEIR SOFTWARE EITHER
I recall replying to this kind of troll and received my first down-mod, 'off-topic' if I'm correct.
Now: back to topic... What if there would be a port of OSX-server to x86? That way it would only be interesting for companies to pirate the software, which they would not likely do with mission-critical servers. Be my guest to comment on this thought, I'm not that uptodate with the hacking/cracking of OS X to x86. And why not Sun-machines?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Ok...this is wrong and I will tell you why....
In the near future, I can go into any store that carries Mac OS X and purchase the Intel version of it. What I do with it after that is my business. Oh sure, I may be "violating" the license by trying to run it on Non-Apple hardware, however am I going to be calling Apple's support line? NO! Am I going to be complaining that it doesn't work on non-apple hardware? Well, yeah I will, but not to Apple. The thing is Apple is the one who CHOSE to use Intel. Intel is a far more open platform then the PowerPC platform is. Most PowerPC companies have thier own deal preventing other OS's running on thier hardware and the different Linux projects have worked arounf this. IBM has ROS on the pSeries and Apple has OpenFirmware. Intel simply doesn't have this kind of limitation. Apple is just one of the first companies to take advantage of EFI and other companies will follow. Why? Apple does not OWN EFI and EFI is destined to replace BIOS. As soon as EFI becomes more popular, it's going to be even EASIER to run Mac OSX on any hardware and even easier to get Windows to run on Apple hardware.
Apple's fighting a battle they cannot win. Just because this site is shutdown does not mean there will not be another to pop up and replace it.
Yes we deserve to run Mac OS X on anything we want....we just won't get support from Apple and a large majority of the people who want to do this probably don't need support from them anyway. Besides, this is a way to transition to Apple hardware in the first place. I think there's a large contingent of people who would LOVE to try it, but want to be sure that they can do what they want to do on it before spending a bunch of dollars on new hardware. After they get it running on a regular Intel box and they find out this stuff is great thier next PC may just come from Apple. This project isn't costing Apple money.
I think that one of the most important things that any project that replaces it needs to make clear is that you must purchase a license from Apple. Right now, this requires you to buy a MacBook Pro or a iMac. In the future, when 10.5 is out, you can just buy that. That way the only thing Apple loses in the near term(after 10.5 is out) is a hardware sale. The project should not condone piracy. In the long term, Apple stands to make that money back on future hardware and software purchases.
Gorkman
Not according to the guy who made the sounds for Apple.
s ound_de.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/24/early_apple_
How come Apple has no problem with you buying a Mac and running Linux on it, but seems to have a problem with people buying Mac OSX and running it on other hardware? I'm sure the number of people who will actually run Mac OSX on a Dell machine are about the same number of people who would run Linux on a Mac. In the end, it really only helps them to get a few more bucks, from people who will buy the OS just to tinker on it. I'm sure there's a lot of web development shops who would love to run OSX just to test out their websites, but don't beacuse it requires buying an entire computer.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Screw you. Who the fuck are you to decide that I should only view links that don't require a subscription? If you don't like it, don't look at the story. I'll decide for myself whether I want to view it, thank you.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Uhm... folks... Joe Sixpack left two hours ago, when he saw the "WARNING: All data on non-removable disk drive C: will be deleted" message in fdisk. He's out in the back yard with the kids.
Most folks named Joe and affectionately called "Sixpack" would probably think something along the lines of "why" if you started talking about your modded OSX. I don't think that this would really affect the popularity of the stock Mac experience.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
They would have much more clients on iTMS if they just offered FairPlay or whatchmacallit to the other manufacturers... They already profit big, and they could be profiting bigger -- and they are blind for not seeing something so obvious.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Awesome! Then, I guess you'd have no concerns with me completely ignoring the GPL as I see fit if I have no intention of ever using OSS "support?"
It's funny that a group who causes it to rain at the mere hint of a license violation that works against its own political agenda is able to essentially laugh the same thing off when it works in the group's favour. There's a word for that, but I can't remember what it is. Hypacro... No. Uh, hipocra... closer, but no.
Meh, it will come to me.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
Your argument contains one small point of contention that really bothers me. The word "buy" implies ownership. When you buy something you can take it home and do as you will. Would you buy a car that required you to only go to one gas station? Would that be moral or even legal? That's the point but the problem here is the law which is not always moral, (remember slave ownership was legal)
;-)
So you are buying something you don't own? That sounds like deceptive tactics to me but they have been getting away with this for years. When you rent a car you sign a very long form a number of times and explicitly agree that you don't own the car and will bring it back undisturbed. This sounds a lot like what Apple wants but without the contract. Who is immoral?
The big problem here is the lousy law called the DMCA. The software companies have a law that gives them more powers that even that rental car contract allows for and you haven't even signed anything? That is a huge stick that is bound to be abused. If you want to be a good American and show the rest of the world how much you value freedom of the individual get rid of that law and any other law that treats people like cattle.
The real reason I followed this thread is because I'm following the linux on mac/intel progress. Running linux on quality hardware has interested me since linux first ran on alpha. OSX on cheap PCs, is that a double negative?
Apple clearly expects to lose the technical battle to keep OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. Calling out the lawyers means they are accepting defeat, at least for the moment on the locking the software front. In a way, this is good news for those who want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware. The information will migrate to being hosted in country without the absurd DMCA.
I don't understand why Apple has restricted their OS.
Unless they have a "deal" with Microsoft (non-compete), they stand to gain a large market share of users by simply providing their OS separate from hardware. Imagine running OS/X on Sun, Intel, AMD... etc?
Apple, "do the math" -- you have a good product, let people use it legitimately (they're going to anyway!).
Rather than brute forcing everyone into accepting their Hardware on their OS, they can instead say "Go for it, but you'll not get any tech support." Apple knows it can't totally contain OS X completely, but they are succeeding in keeping OS X out of the mainstream x86 boxen.
This is an example of how new ideas get made and how the market progresses in a way that benefits everyone. :)